It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Boss]

If homosexuals can enter into an opposite sex marriage, heterosexuals can enter into a same sex marriage.

Well it doesn't matter now because SCOTUS has ruled that sexuality is a Constitutionally-protected right under the 14th Amendment and marriage has to be redefined in order to accommodate a sexual proclivity.

Again, there is no such thing as "same sex marriage" it's the same thing as saying "same sex procreation" or "same sex intercourse" ...those words have specific meaning and you've altered the meaning to include behavior that doesn't fit the criteria.

When you take a shit, you're NOT "having a baby!" Perhaps you are constipated and it's a really big turd and you feel like you're having a baby... you still can't call it "having a baby" it doesn't matter how it feels to you. If you try to claim the turd as a dependent on your tax returns, that isn't allowed because a turd isn't a baby... passing a turd is not having a baby. Sure.. we can change the law... SCOTUS can make some insane and lawless ruling... it's still not going to EVER be "having a baby!"

 

[Boss]

I said they won't be allowed because their equal protection is not being violated.

And neither were the equal protection rights of homosexuals. NO ONE could have a same-sex marriage.. gay, straight or otherwise. ALL were given equal access to marry... Marriage being what it is.. the union of a man and woman. The fact that homosexuals might not be interested in such a relationship doesn't mean they were excluded from the right to do so.

And let's be clear about something else... Gay people weren't even prohibited from having a wedding and pretending they were married... they just couldn't have it codified by state authority. I attended a gay wedding in Alabama, in 1986! No redneck sheriff was there to stop it, no county clerk waving her bible around to prevent it... it happened.

 

[Faun]

If homosexuals can enter into an opposite sex marriage, heterosexuals can enter into a same sex marriage.

Well it doesn't matter now because SCOTUS has ruled that sexuality is a Constitutionally-protected right under the 14th Amendment and marriage has to be redefined in order to accommodate a sexual proclivity.

No, the SCOTUS didn't.

Sadly, again, your derangement interferes with your abilities to comprehend.

 

[Faun]

I said they won't be allowed because their equal protection is not being violated.

And neither were the equal protection rights of homosexuals. NO ONE could have a same-sex marriage.. gay, straight or otherwise. ALL were given equal access to marry... Marriage being what it is.. the union of a man and woman. The fact that homosexuals might not be interested in such a relationship doesn't mean they were excluded from the right to do so.

And let's be clear about something else... Gay people weren't even prohibited from having a wedding and pretending they were married... they just couldn't have it codified by state authority. I attended a gay wedding in Alabama, in 1986! No redneck sheriff was there to stop it, no county clerk waving her bible around to prevent it... it happened.

 

[Geaux4it]

You're fucking deranged.

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness. That requires making the life long marital bond with the person you love. Not some random person you don't love just because they happen to be of the opposite gender.

Well okay, IF this is true... you cannot deny this same "fundamental right" to a person and the multiple partners they love... or a person and the animal they love... the person and sibling they love... the person and the 12-year-old they love... etc.

What you are trying to do in your most hypocritical way, is have your cake and eat it too. You think that we can pick and choose what relationships we're cool with and which ones we think are "icky" and you can't apply the Constitution to different groups differently. You've convinced yourself that all these arguments made in order to obtain same-sex marriage (which is an oxymoron) can't be used by others seeking the same legitimacy for their sexual proclivity. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, they CAN make this argument.

Too fucking deranged. Like I said, you simply can't understand, despite having it explined to you numerous times. There is no point in explaining it again as it will merely sail clear over your head again.

The Boss has a point. If marriage is not between a man and woman, it must be between man, and anything else other than woman

-Geaux

 

[Faun]

You're fucking deranged.

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness. That requires making the life long marital bond with the person you love. Not some random person you don't love just because they happen to be of the opposite gender.

Well okay, IF this is true... you cannot deny this same "fundamental right" to a person and the multiple partners they love... or a person and the animal they love... the person and sibling they love... the person and the 12-year-old they love... etc.

What you are trying to do in your most hypocritical way, is have your cake and eat it too. You think that we can pick and choose what relationships we're cool with and which ones we think are "icky" and you can't apply the Constitution to different groups differently. You've convinced yourself that all these arguments made in order to obtain same-sex marriage (which is an oxymoron) can't be used by others seeking the same legitimacy for their sexual proclivity. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, they CAN make this argument.

Too fucking deranged. Like I said, you simply can't understand, despite having it explined to you numerous times. There is no point in explaining it again as it will merely sail clear over your head again.

The Boss has a point. If marriage is not between a man and woman, it must be between man, and anything else other than woman

-Geaux

That's not a point. That's a delusion.

 

[Boss]

You're fucking deranged.

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness. That requires making the life long marital bond with the person you love. Not some random person you don't love just because they happen to be of the opposite gender.

Well okay, IF this is true... you cannot deny this same "fundamental right" to a person and the multiple partners they love... or a person and the animal they love... the person and sibling they love... the person and the 12-year-old they love... etc.

What you are trying to do in your most hypocritical way, is have your cake and eat it too. You think that we can pick and choose what relationships we're cool with and which ones we think are "icky" and you can't apply the Constitution to different groups differently. You've convinced yourself that all these arguments made in order to obtain same-sex marriage (which is an oxymoron) can't be used by others seeking the same legitimacy for their sexual proclivity. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, they CAN make this argument.

Too fucking deranged. Like I said, you simply can't understand, despite having it explined to you numerous times. There is no point in explaining it again as it will merely sail clear over your head again.

The Boss has a point. If marriage is not between a man and woman, it must be between man, and anything else other than woman

-Geaux

That's NOT what I've said. My personal viewpoint is, why is government telling us what marriage is? Why do people think this is cool or great... that a court and government are deciding what we (the free people) are 'allowed' to call marriage? If I want to have an intimate relationship with my guitar and call her my wife, why is that the business of anyone else, especially the government?

Okay, I get that "the grown-ups" have various institutionalized responsibilities in which a "marital spouse" or "significant other" comes into play... insurance, taxes, visitation, etc. All of these things could be covered by basic civil contracts without involving marriage. There is absolutely NO need to have government sanction marriage in 2015.

To my knowledge, the SCOTUS ruling doesn't allow a brother and sister to marry. However, there could be a brother and sister out there who live together, pay bills together, run their household together the same as a married couple... maybe they have incestual relations, maybe they don't... maybe they are just close and circumstances are, this is how they prefer to live domestically. Why are they not allowed the same tax breaks of a married couple? Why can't they "marry the person they love" irrespective of sexual relations? There is no reason, especially now that marriage has been redefined.

 

[Faun]

You're fucking deranged.

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness. That requires making the life long marital bond with the person you love. Not some random person you don't love just because they happen to be of the opposite gender.

Well okay, IF this is true... you cannot deny this same "fundamental right" to a person and the multiple partners they love... or a person and the animal they love... the person and sibling they love... the person and the 12-year-old they love... etc.

What you are trying to do in your most hypocritical way, is have your cake and eat it too. You think that we can pick and choose what relationships we're cool with and which ones we think are "icky" and you can't apply the Constitution to different groups differently. You've convinced yourself that all these arguments made in order to obtain same-sex marriage (which is an oxymoron) can't be used by others seeking the same legitimacy for their sexual proclivity. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, they CAN make this argument.

Too fucking deranged. Like I said, you simply can't understand, despite having it explined to you numerous times. There is no point in explaining it again as it will merely sail clear over your head again.

The Boss has a point. If marriage is not between a man and woman, it must be between man, and anything else other than woman

-Geaux

That's NOT what I've said. My personal viewpoint is, why is government telling us what marriage is? Why do people think this is cool or great... that a court and government are deciding what we (the free people) are 'allowed' to call marriage? If I want to have an intimage relationship with my guitar and call her my wife, why is that the business of anyone else, especially the government?

Okay, I get that "the grown ups" have various institutionalized responsibilities in which a "marital spouse" or "significant other" comes into play... insurance, taxes, visitation, etc. All of these things could be covered by basic civil contracts without involving marriage. There is absolutely NO need to have government sanction marriage in 2015.

To my knowledge, the SCOTUS ruling doesn't allow a brother and sister to marry. However, there could be a brother and sister out there who live together, pay bills together, run their household together the same as a married couple... maybe they have incestual relations, maybe they don't... maybe they are just close and circumstances are, this is how they prefer to live domestically. Why are they not allowed the same tax breaks of a married couple? Why can't they "marry the person they love" irrespective of sexual relations? There is no reason, especially now that marriage has been redefined.

There you go, wondering again why those other groups are not allowed to marry. You know, the position you earlier denied taking even after you were shown your own words revealing your questioning.

Here again you wonder why they can't marry.

 

[Boss]

You're fucking deranged.

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness. That requires making the life long marital bond with the person you love. Not some random person you don't love just because they happen to be of the opposite gender.

Well okay, IF this is true... you cannot deny this same "fundamental right" to a person and the multiple partners they love... or a person and the animal they love... the person and sibling they love... the person and the 12-year-old they love... etc.

What you are trying to do in your most hypocritical way, is have your cake and eat it too. You think that we can pick and choose what relationships we're cool with and which ones we think are "icky" and you can't apply the Constitution to different groups differently. You've convinced yourself that all these arguments made in order to obtain same-sex marriage (which is an oxymoron) can't be used by others seeking the same legitimacy for their sexual proclivity. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, they CAN make this argument.

Too fucking deranged. Like I said, you simply can't understand, despite having it explined to you numerous times. There is no point in explaining it again as it will merely sail clear over your head again.

The Boss has a point. If marriage is not between a man and woman, it must be between man, and anything else other than woman

-Geaux

That's NOT what I've said. My personal viewpoint is, why is government telling us what marriage is? Why do people think this is cool or great... that a court and government are deciding what we (the free people) are 'allowed' to call marriage? If I want to have an intimage relationship with my guitar and call her my wife, why is that the business of anyone else, especially the government?

Okay, I get that "the grown ups" have various institutionalized responsibilities in which a "marital spouse" or "significant other" comes into play... insurance, taxes, visitation, etc. All of these things could be covered by basic civil contracts without involving marriage. There is absolutely NO need to have government sanction marriage in 2015.

To my knowledge, the SCOTUS ruling doesn't allow a brother and sister to marry. However, there could be a brother and sister out there who live together, pay bills together, run their household together the same as a married couple... maybe they have incestual relations, maybe they don't... maybe they are just close and circumstances are, this is how they prefer to live domestically. Why are they not allowed the same tax breaks of a married couple? Why can't they "marry the person they love" irrespective of sexual relations? There is no reason, especially now that marriage has been redefined.

There you go, wondering again why those other groups are not allowed to marry. You know, the position you earlier denied taking even after you were shown your own words revealing your questioning.

Here again you wonder why they can't marry.

I don't know what the fuck you're yapping about. I'm not wondering anything. You seem to not understand what our Constitution says about equal protection. The Constitution leaves nothing to wonder. You can wonder, because you're too dumb to know what the Constitution says. So sit there with your finger in your nose looking ignorant, muttering... duh, dey cantz get marrified cuz its not legalz..derp derp!

 

[Faun]

Well okay, IF this is true... you cannot deny this same "fundamental right" to a person and the multiple partners they love... or a person and the animal they love... the person and sibling they love... the person and the 12-year-old they love... etc.

What you are trying to do in your most hypocritical way, is have your cake and eat it too. You think that we can pick and choose what relationships we're cool with and which ones we think are "icky" and you can't apply the Constitution to different groups differently. You've convinced yourself that all these arguments made in order to obtain same-sex marriage (which is an oxymoron) can't be used by others seeking the same legitimacy for their sexual proclivity. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, they CAN make this argument.

Too fucking deranged. Like I said, you simply can't understand, despite having it explined to you numerous times. There is no point in explaining it again as it will merely sail clear over your head again.

The Boss has a point. If marriage is not between a man and woman, it must be between man, and anything else other than woman

-Geaux

That's NOT what I've said. My personal viewpoint is, why is government telling us what marriage is? Why do people think this is cool or great... that a court and government are deciding what we (the free people) are 'allowed' to call marriage? If I want to have an intimage relationship with my guitar and call her my wife, why is that the business of anyone else, especially the government?

Okay, I get that "the grown ups" have various institutionalized responsibilities in which a "marital spouse" or "significant other" comes into play... insurance, taxes, visitation, etc. All of these things could be covered by basic civil contracts without involving marriage. There is absolutely NO need to have government sanction marriage in 2015.

To my knowledge, the SCOTUS ruling doesn't allow a brother and sister to marry. However, there could be a brother and sister out there who live together, pay bills together, run their household together the same as a married couple... maybe they have incestual relations, maybe they don't... maybe they are just close and circumstances are, this is how they prefer to live domestically. Why are they not allowed the same tax breaks of a married couple? Why can't they "marry the person they love" irrespective of sexual relations? There is no reason, especially now that marriage has been redefined.

There you go, wondering again why those other groups are not allowed to marry. You know, the position you earlier denied taking even after you were shown your own words revealing your questioning.

Here again you wonder why they can't marry.

I don't know what the fuck you're yapping about. I'm not wondering anything. You seem to not understand what our Constitution says about equal protection. The Constitution leaves nothing to wonder. You can wonder, because you're too dumb to know what the Constitution says. So sit there with your finger in your nose looking ignorant, muttering... duh, dey cantz get marrified cuz its not legalz..derp derp!

Suuure, rightard... questioning why those folks are not allowed to marry is not wondering why.

 

[Boss]

Too fucking deranged. Like I said, you simply can't understand, despite having it explined to you numerous times. There is no point in explaining it again as it will merely sail clear over your head again.

The Boss has a point. If marriage is not between a man and woman, it must be between man, and anything else other than woman

-Geaux

That's NOT what I've said. My personal viewpoint is, why is government telling us what marriage is? Why do people think this is cool or great... that a court and government are deciding what we (the free people) are 'allowed' to call marriage? If I want to have an intimage relationship with my guitar and call her my wife, why is that the business of anyone else, especially the government?

Okay, I get that "the grown ups" have various institutionalized responsibilities in which a "marital spouse" or "significant other" comes into play... insurance, taxes, visitation, etc. All of these things could be covered by basic civil contracts without involving marriage. There is absolutely NO need to have government sanction marriage in 2015.

To my knowledge, the SCOTUS ruling doesn't allow a brother and sister to marry. However, there could be a brother and sister out there who live together, pay bills together, run their household together the same as a married couple... maybe they have incestual relations, maybe they don't... maybe they are just close and circumstances are, this is how they prefer to live domestically. Why are they not allowed the same tax breaks of a married couple? Why can't they "marry the person they love" irrespective of sexual relations? There is no reason, especially now that marriage has been redefined.

There you go, wondering again why those other groups are not allowed to marry. You know, the position you earlier denied taking even after you were shown your own words revealing your questioning.

Here again you wonder why they can't marry.

I don't know what the fuck you're yapping about. I'm not wondering anything. You seem to not understand what our Constitution says about equal protection. The Constitution leaves nothing to wonder. You can wonder, because you're too dumb to know what the Constitution says. So sit there with your finger in your nose looking ignorant, muttering... duh, dey cantz get marrified cuz its not legalz..derp derp!

Suuure, rightard... questioning why those folks are not allowed to marry is not wondering why.

You're the one who thinks there is a question. I think the Constitution is clear. There is no question of whether or not you get to discriminate against other groups you don't like. Any "question" you seem to think you're seeing from me is a rhetorical one, asked in order to demonstrate what you can't explain. That's not me wondering, that is you being clueless.

 

[Montrovant]

Do I have to go look for psychological papers and studies to show harm done from rape by pedophiles? Do I need to show the potential harm from disease for a necrophiliac, or point out that the body they might have sex with does not belong to them? If nothing else, bestiality could be considered animal abuse because, once again, the lack of consent. In legal terms any sex with an animal could be considered rape (although obviously not the same as rape of a human) and therefore abusive.

You could do those things if you wanted to sound exactly like opponents of gay marriage and homosexuality. There are STDs exclusively prevalent in homosexuals as the result of anal sex. Fecal bacteria causes death and you are at risk every time you engage in anal sex. Sodomy laws were exclusively based on absence of consent... you can't consent to be sodomized any more than you can consent to be raped.... or, so was the legal argument. Sodomy, for all intents and purposes, was considered no different than rape. Incest is currently in that category. Does it belong there or are these delineations we've constructed out of moral righteousness? When it comes to animal sex, what about the female who is mounted by her German Shepherd? The dog obviously doesn't object.. it's instinctual for them.

Yes indeed... LOTS of things "could be considered" back when we had no Constitutional obligation to respect the rights of the individual's sexual behavior... that has now changed. That's my point.

Anal sex is neither exclusive to homosexuals nor practiced by all homosexuals. As with most anti-gay people, you end up boiling homosexuality down to male anal sex. Well, I hate to break it to you, but anal sex is practiced by many heterosexuals.

Again, can you show a sodomy law which is based on consent? You say they were based on consent but haven't shown any. I am very curious to see the sodomy statutes which say it is illegal because someone cannot consent to have anal or oral sex. I'm guessing such laws never existed, but please, feel free to prove me wrong. You might also explain why, if sodomy was based on consent and considered no different than rape, both parties involved in the act would be arrested? Are rape victims normally arrested and convicted of being raped?

Incest is considered no different than rape? By who, exactly? In some cases incest is rape, in some cases it is statutory rape. In some cases there can be a gray area; can a child really consent to a relationship with a parent? Does the dynamic there mean the parent has undo influence and coercion? In some cases it is consensual. You continue to post in ways that make it seem you don't really understand the concept of consent.

Same sex marriage did not create a constitutional obligation to respect the rights of the individual's sexual behavior. You can make that claim as many times as you like, it doesn't make it true. There were laws regarding sexual contact before Obergefell or Lawrence, there are laws regarding sexual contact after those decisions. Lawrence was based on privacy, Obergefell on equal access to marriage law. Lawrence might be said to have enshrined consensual sexual behavior as a matter of privacy, but as with all rights, there are limits. The big one when it comes to sex is consent.

You seem to have an amazingly poor grasp of what actually went into the court decisions being discussed as well as the idea of legal consent.

 

[Montrovant]

If homosexuals can enter into an opposite sex marriage, heterosexuals can enter into a same sex marriage.

Well it doesn't matter now because SCOTUS has ruled that sexuality is a Constitutionally-protected right under the 14th Amendment and marriage has to be redefined in order to accommodate a sexual proclivity.

Again, there is no such thing as "same sex marriage" it's the same thing as saying "same sex procreation" or "same sex intercourse" ...those words have specific meaning and you've altered the meaning to include behavior that doesn't fit the criteria.

When you take a shit, you're NOT "having a baby!" Perhaps you are constipated and it's a really big turd and you feel like you're having a baby... you still can't call it "having a baby" it doesn't matter how it feels to you. If you try to claim the turd as a dependent on your tax returns, that isn't allowed because a turd isn't a baby... passing a turd is not having a baby. Sure.. we can change the law... SCOTUS can make some insane and lawless ruling... it's still not going to EVER be "having a baby!"

No, the court ruled nothing of the sort.

There is such a thing as same sex marriage. Marriage has had different definitions through time, it has not been a static thing. Same sex procreation may not be possible now, but I've actually read that it may be close to possible, at least for two women. It's been a while since I saw the article, so I can't give you any specifics, but supposedly researchers felt they were close to somehow fertilizing a woman's egg with another woman's DNA. Maybe manufactured sperm, some sort of viral delivery, I don't know? Intercourse can include oral or anal sex.

You dislike changing definitions? That's unfortunate for you. It does not mean that the things you don't like don't exist.

 

[Montrovant]

You're fucking deranged.

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness. That requires making the life long marital bond with the person you love. Not some random person you don't love just because they happen to be of the opposite gender.

Well okay, IF this is true... you cannot deny this same "fundamental right" to a person and the multiple partners they love... or a person and the animal they love... the person and sibling they love... the person and the 12-year-old they love... etc.

What you are trying to do in your most hypocritical way, is have your cake and eat it too. You think that we can pick and choose what relationships we're cool with and which ones we think are "icky" and you can't apply the Constitution to different groups differently. You've convinced yourself that all these arguments made in order to obtain same-sex marriage (which is an oxymoron) can't be used by others seeking the same legitimacy for their sexual proclivity. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, they CAN make this argument.

Too fucking deranged. Like I said, you simply can't understand, despite having it explined to you numerous times. There is no point in explaining it again as it will merely sail clear over your head again.

The Boss has a point. If marriage is not between a man and woman, it must be between man, and anything else other than woman

-Geaux

Why? Why are there only two possible definitions for the word? What about the fact that marriage has meant different things through history; a man and multiple wives, a white man and white woman or a black man and black woman, a brother and sister, etc.? Can the definition of marriage change so long as it remains something you are comfortable with?

 

[Montrovant]

Well okay, IF this is true... you cannot deny this same "fundamental right" to a person and the multiple partners they love... or a person and the animal they love... the person and sibling they love... the person and the 12-year-old they love... etc.

What you are trying to do in your most hypocritical way, is have your cake and eat it too. You think that we can pick and choose what relationships we're cool with and which ones we think are "icky" and you can't apply the Constitution to different groups differently. You've convinced yourself that all these arguments made in order to obtain same-sex marriage (which is an oxymoron) can't be used by others seeking the same legitimacy for their sexual proclivity. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, they CAN make this argument.

Too fucking deranged. Like I said, you simply can't understand, despite having it explined to you numerous times. There is no point in explaining it again as it will merely sail clear over your head again.

The Boss has a point. If marriage is not between a man and woman, it must be between man, and anything else other than woman

-Geaux

That's NOT what I've said. My personal viewpoint is, why is government telling us what marriage is? Why do people think this is cool or great... that a court and government are deciding what we (the free people) are 'allowed' to call marriage? If I want to have an intimage relationship with my guitar and call her my wife, why is that the business of anyone else, especially the government?

Okay, I get that "the grown ups" have various institutionalized responsibilities in which a "marital spouse" or "significant other" comes into play... insurance, taxes, visitation, etc. All of these things could be covered by basic civil contracts without involving marriage. There is absolutely NO need to have government sanction marriage in 2015.

To my knowledge, the SCOTUS ruling doesn't allow a brother and sister to marry. However, there could be a brother and sister out there who live together, pay bills together, run their household together the same as a married couple... maybe they have incestual relations, maybe they don't... maybe they are just close and circumstances are, this is how they prefer to live domestically. Why are they not allowed the same tax breaks of a married couple? Why can't they "marry the person they love" irrespective of sexual relations? There is no reason, especially now that marriage has been redefined.

There you go, wondering again why those other groups are not allowed to marry. You know, the position you earlier denied taking even after you were shown your own words revealing your questioning.

Here again you wonder why they can't marry.

I don't know what the fuck you're yapping about. I'm not wondering anything. You seem to not understand what our Constitution says about equal protection. The Constitution leaves nothing to wonder. You can wonder, because you're too dumb to know what the Constitution says. So sit there with your finger in your nose looking ignorant, muttering... duh, dey cantz get marrified cuz its not legalz..derp derp!

Yes, Faun, so ignorant....along with, it seems, the justices on the USSC.....but you, Boss, you are clearly the authority on the constitution.

You're fucking deranged.

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the long recognized inalienable right to pursue happiness. That requires making the life long marital bond with the person you love. Not some random person you don't love just because they happen to be of the opposite gender.

Well okay, IF this is true... you cannot deny this same "fundamental right" to a person and the multiple partners they love... or a person and the animal they love... the person and sibling they love... the person and the 12-year-old they love... etc.

What you are trying to do in your most hypocritical way, is have your cake and eat it too. You think that we can pick and choose what relationships we're cool with and which ones we think are "icky" and you can't apply the Constitution to different groups differently. You've convinced yourself that all these arguments made in order to obtain same-sex marriage (which is an oxymoron) can't be used by others seeking the same legitimacy for their sexual proclivity. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, they CAN make this argument.

Too fucking deranged. Like I said, you simply can't understand, despite having it explined to you numerous times. There is no point in explaining it again as it will merely sail clear over your head again.

The Boss has a point. If marriage is not between a man and woman, it must be between man, and anything else other than woman

-Geaux

That's NOT what I've said. My personal viewpoint is, why is government telling us what marriage is? Why do people think this is cool or great... that a court and government are deciding what we (the free people) are 'allowed' to call marriage? If I want to have an intimate relationship with my guitar and call her my wife, why is that the business of anyone else, especially the government?

Okay, I get that "the grown-ups" have various institutionalized responsibilities in which a "marital spouse" or "significant other" comes into play... insurance, taxes, visitation, etc. All of these things could be covered by basic civil contracts without involving marriage. There is absolutely NO need to have government sanction marriage in 2015.

To my knowledge, the SCOTUS ruling doesn't allow a brother and sister to marry. However, there could be a brother and sister out there who live together, pay bills together, run their household together the same as a married couple... maybe they have incestual relations, maybe they don't... maybe they are just close and circumstances are, this is how they prefer to live domestically. Why are they not allowed the same tax breaks of a married couple? Why can't they "marry the person they love" irrespective of sexual relations? There is no reason, especially now that marriage has been redefined.

Where has the government decided what you are allowed to call marriage? Call anything you want marriage. Who's stopping you?

Yes, we could call legal marriage something else, like civil unions. I'm all for that, I totally agree with you there. However, I also believe there is no chance of that happening any time soon. That's not because of gays or same sex marriage. It's because the idea of marriage as a legal institution is far too deeply ingrained in our culture. It would take at least a generation or two of people pushing for all marriage to change, and the idea getting traction, before I think it could realistically happen. But yes, like you, I'd be happier if the government would just get out of the marriage business, even if just by changing the name. It would shut the whole 'marriage has to mean a man and woman' argument down, at least.

I don't know what the legal arguments regarding incest are, but I can guess. First, of course, is the possible danger from inbreeding. That shouldn't be an issue for infertile couples, but it may be that the law simply made a blanket rule and didn't allow exceptions. Beyond that is the question of positions of power, undue influence, things like that. A family member can have a relationship which makes it questionable whether both members of a relationship can truly consent. This is particularly true when it comes to parents and children, but that may extend to siblings as well. And it's possible rules regarding incest could change. Those rules are not changed because of either Lawrence or Obergefell, though.

 

[Syriusly]

Again .... the law is applied equally..

Again. no... the law is not applied equally, the law was changed to redefine the definition of marriage which now accommodates a particular group of people who weren't included before because they didn't meet the criteria for marriage.

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them. Just like there became a time when it was recognized there was no compelling reason to deny blacks the right to marry whites. Whereas there is a compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage, polygamy, adult/child marriage and marriage to animals.

Those are all illegal acts and no one has access for any of those types of marriage.

Again, the law is applied evenly to all and the 14th Amendment remains untattered.

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them.

Okay, then there is no compelling reason to exclude other similar groups. Who decided that it is more "okay" to engage in homosexual behavior as opposed to pedophilia behavior? Or bestiality? Or S&M? Or any of the other countless sexual proclivities? Why is THAT behavior treated specially? --No reason-- It's a matter of morals, the same morals that opposed homosexual marriage. You've destroyed those morals now and made sexuality a right. Congratulations, enjoy the can of worms you opened.

You're a fucking imbecile. Homosexuality is not a "similar" group to incest, beastiality, pedophilia, or polygamy. What the fuck is wrong with you?

As far as your imaginary can of worms; no, it was not opened. None of those other deviant sex scts became legal even after gay sex became legal, so your twisted argument falls flat on its face. And they still remain illegal with no compelling argument to alter that.

The reality is that the bigoted right who fought, and lost, their battle to keep same-sex marriage illegal are the only ones promoting the slippery slope notion that same-sex mariage would lead to those other forms of marriage. And y'all did so with the hope that if you could lump gays in with other more distateful and illegal sex acts, as you just tried to do in your last post, you could get society on your side of the debate.

You lost that debate because society is not as stupid as you.

Gay is deviant. Just because the scotus ruled in favor of the few weirdos means society supports it? Stupid.

Why is it important to you that 'deviancy' be illegal?

Lots of people are 'deviant'- Judaism, Mormonism, left handed people, red haired people, people who enjoy opera.

I am curious as to what political persuasion believes society should criminalize people who are 'deviant'? Or who do things that you don't agree with- but that don't affect you?

Would you call yourself Conservative- or Liberal?

 

[Syriusly]

What we are witnessimg are the final emotional throws of bigots who have to come to grips with the rest of society for some reason no longer supporting their bigotry.

No, what you are witnessing is otherwise tolerant and rational people becoming frustrated because they can't ever seem to do enough for gays. You keep pushing and pushing for something you're never going to have...

You see, what you really want is to be accepted as normal... but you're not normal, are you? You realize what you do is wrong and abnormal for human beings and you seek to have your abnormal behavior accepted and legitimized... but you know that it never will be. No amount of tolerance will ever suffice, you'll keep on pushing until society pushes back, and they will.

What is "enough" for the gays?

Not firing them or denying them housing?
Not kicking them out of the military?
Allowing them to openly say who they are?
Permitting them to marry the person they love?

Where was your breaking point?

When the victim became the bully. The line between the two is frightfully thin.

And when did that happen?

 

[jillian]

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

...Let the flames begin!

I support rolling back to 'don't ask, don't tell'

Just because a corrupt justice like Kennedy sold out America, doesn't make it right.. Just lawful

There are many things lawful that are harmful and dangerous, The way the red carpet is being rolled out for the queers is over the top. A queer society is a unhealthy one full of disease, suicide and depression.

Why a person chooses to puff peter when god intended otherwise, just shows the continued decay of our society. Allowing someone the choice to talk funny, make-out in public, just because little kids in the park need to learn that two guys who look like their dad and uncle, are swapping spit on the park bench..... and guess what... nothing is wrong with it. Just like a hetero couple kissing. Yea, everyone thinks its normal seeing this display of perversion, two guys making out in public

But as we know, they have no class and rub it in your face.

Protect your kids and grand kids from the public display of the homo life-style.

I just give the queers dirty looks then shake my head

-Geaux

corrupt? for him to follow the precedent set by Loving v Virginia and do the right thing?

lmao... thanks for your constitutional "expertise".

idiotic to think he sold his vote. not only is it idiotic but it's defamatory.

loon

 

[jillian]

Again .... the law is applied equally..

Again. no... the law is not applied equally, the law was changed to redefine the definition of marriage which now accommodates a particular group of people who weren't included before because they didn't meet the criteria for marriage.

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them. Just like there became a time when it was recognized there was no compelling reason to deny blacks the right to marry whites. Whereas there is a compelling reason to deny incestuous marriage, polygamy, adult/child marriage and marriage to animals.

Those are all illegal acts and no one has access for any of those types of marriage.

Again, the law is applied evenly to all and the 14th Amendment remains untattered.

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them.

Okay, then there is no compelling reason to exclude other similar groups. Who decided that it is more "okay" to engage in homosexual behavior as opposed to pedophilia behavior? Or bestiality? Or S&M? Or any of the other countless sexual proclivities? Why is THAT behavior treated specially? --No reason-- It's a matter of morals, the same morals that opposed homosexual marriage. You've destroyed those morals now and made sexuality a right. Congratulations, enjoy the can of worms you opened.

You're a fucking imbecile. Homosexuality is not a "similar" group to incest, beastiality, pedophilia, or polygamy. What the fuck is wrong with you?

As far as your imaginary can of worms; no, it was not opened. None of those other deviant sex scts became legal even after gay sex became legal, so your twisted argument falls flat on its face. And they still remain illegal with no compelling argument to alter that.

The reality is that the bigoted right who fought, and lost, their battle to keep same-sex marriage illegal are the only ones promoting the slippery slope notion that same-sex mariage would lead to those other forms of marriage. And y'all did so with the hope that if you could lump gays in with other more distateful and illegal sex acts, as you just tried to do in your last post, you could get society on your side of the debate.

You lost that debate because society is not as stupid as you.

Gay is deviant. Just because the scotus ruled in favor of the few weirdos means society supports it? Stupid.

your bigotry is not anyone else's problem.

 

[Syriusly]

Same sex marriage doesn't change consent laws in any way.

Again... Consent laws are easier to modify than traditional marriage.

But changing marriage does not change consent laws. You argue that because same sex marriage is now legal, marriages with members that cannot consent must also be made legal. That is clearly untrue and not following the reasoning of the Obergefell decision.

This has nothing to do with consent laws.. incidentally, the very same consent laws which once made homosexuality illegal. Those can be changed very easily and they already vary from state to state.

Really?

When did consent have anything to do with laws which made homosexuality illegal?

From what I have seen, sodomy laws didn't care about consent.